click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121112
20121120
STATION
CSPAN2 5
CSPAN 4
MSNBCW 4
MSNBC 3
CNBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 19
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
the roll. quorum call: quorum call: >> administrator, thank you for being here at ronald reagan national airport. as we look at the holidays fast approaching, thanksgiving next week, we're anticipating a busy travel season again, and the men and women of tsa are standing at the ready to provide the most effective security in the most effective way. as you know, that creates challenges and opportunities for the traveling public, quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, we're in a quorum call, is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. udall: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, i ask the chair lay before the senate a message from the house with respect to s. 743. the presiding officer: the clerk will re
ronald reagan not making the case for immigration, but for amnesty, using that word. republicans are pro-immigration but they have been afraid of the past six years of the anti- immigration law me. immigration lobby. now i think this election cycle has dramatically changed that. i can at least number half a dozen radio and tv talk shows that have already said, you know what, my position has evolved, now time for immigration reform. now -- i am for immigration reform. that is good, because it will give cover for republicans who have avoided this issue and want to deal with this issue to actually do it. immigration and being for immigration reform is the conservative position. restrictionism part of the nationalist protectionist paradigm t. if we are the party of the family and a free-market, the gop is, we should not in any way have a restrictionist position. if we are for the family, i don't see why we should be calling for supporting hundreds of thousands of families and in this country -- operating hundreds of thousands of families in this country. many have been here for decades. why
that welcomes and that celebrates legal immigrants. ronald reagan famously called legal immigrants americans by choice. and we need to celebrate that story of those who risk everything seeking freedom because that's what makes our country strong. >> don't we have to make policy changes, too? it isn't just for politics. i believe immigrants come here to work, not just for welfare. i happen to believe they smart small business. i think you mentioned that. they're good entrepreneurial people that help grow our economy. but we need to give them worker permits, bring them out of the shadows, give them a path to citizenship. leaders like yourself, an an american-cuban-hispanic. you've got to get out there and make this case, you and marco rube yoe a rubio, go back and make the case to the hispanic community. >> larry, i think we should remain and welcome and embrace legal immigrants. at the same time, we've got to continue to respect rule of law and not adopt policies that are unfair for the millions of people who have been waiting years and sometimes decades to come into this country legally. rul
conference after being re-elected to a second term as president, then president ronald reagan was asked if he had anything to say to the people in the country who did not vote for him and who did not feel that they were part of the reagan revolution. he was also asked about nancy reagan falling down and bumping her head right before the election. he said that she had a tender lump on the side of her head, but that she would be fine. in president clinton's first press conference, after he was re-elected to a second term, the president started to answer a question about the role of first lady hillary clinton in the second clinton term, before he sort of diverted himself into talking about just how damned tired he was. >> well, let me answer the question about hillary. i think what first lady will do is something that i think it will be consistent with what she's been doing, but we have not, frankly, we've been too tired to talk about it. yesterday, i'm embarrassed to tell the american people, i actually slept past noon. i was tired. >> there's no shame in that. >> in the first press conference
was it, 1982 or 1983, back in the 1980's, tip o'neill and ronald reagan got together and made adjustments to social security that saved the program. that's my point. sometimes you need to adjust and change to save the very thing you care most about. and so tip o'neill didn't sell out the democratic party by embracing that agreement. the democrats in congress, many of them very progressive at that time who supported it, didn't work traders to the party. if we do it in a responsible way, a balanced and doesn't just gut the programs and just not all entitlement reform with no revenue, i think the base of the party and leaders and organized labor will understand. they also know the alternative is doing nothing, with bad damage to jobs and the economy. and ultimately insolvency of these programs themselves, or. b, the right wing of the republicans are coming in and taking over because we have done nothing to solve the problem and their answer to the solution would be much more draconian. host: jack. he's our first phone call for the senator. republican. go ahead. caller: mr. bayh, one question
earned that money and ronald reagan raised the age and that gave this this surplus and they robbed it out of there. >> thanks. nathaniel says in my opinion if we're going to cut the first thing to go is foreign aid. well there's another spending item. front page of the "washington post" dealing with the military. headline. four star lifestyle. points out the scandal involving david a try us has prompted new scrutiny of the general's lifestyle. the overseeing of troops around the world and these people enjoy perks. palatial homes and people to track their schedule and these with the jump page article the fog of more. do perks collar generals with a photograph of general a try us that would have been the equivalent of a presidential motorcade and then another one on dwight eisenhower on the 17th hole in scotland and the perks given to generals in the army and navy. admirals in the navy and others in the u.s. military. william from florida. democrat line. good morning. >> good morning. yes. i'll say instead of cutting entitlements like social security or medicaid. with social security, it's
lines, stagflation. in 1980, a different president got elected. ronald reagan, like barack obama, inherited a struggling economy. ronald reagan implemented policies 180 degrees opposite of barack obama. instead of checking up taxes, he cut taxes. instead of exploding spending and the death, he restrained growth and spending. instead of -- debt, he restrained growth and spending. instead of releasing the hounds of regulators on small businesses and rescue -- entrepreneurs, reagan limited regulation. the result was one of the strongest person of economic activity our nation has ever seen. the fourth year of reagan's presidency was 1984, precisely corresponding to right now in obama's presidency. does anyone know what gdp was then? 7.2%. our ideas work. their ideas do not. if you want the 23 million people struggling finding work to get jobs, the answer is simple. you need growth. to get growth, you have got to reduce and simplify the tax burden, reduce regulations, and unchain small businesses and entrepreneurs. over six -- over 50% of americans who voted on election day believed t
. there is that incentive as well. you have to look at ronald reagan as well as henry kissinger, when they went into negotiations, said you have to come willing to truly cut a deal. you may get 90%. >> takes both sides. obama is very good in liberal rhetoric blaming republicans. even in "l.a. times", obama wants to help the middle class but republicans don't want to give everything to the rich which is not true. and a lot of liberals are saying this was a mandate to raise taxes? i think people can be pro-choice, pro-day marriage and have fiscal responsibility and live within their means. jon: well, i mean to be honest, angela, the president campaigned on a platform saying i'm going to go back to the bill clinton tax rates and the wealthiest are going to have to pay more money and he won. >> but bill clinton worked with a republican congress and our economy was not in dire straits that it is right now. so if he really wants to go back to the bill clinton days he should go to the table and work with republicans. >> also you have to look taxes were historical high. one of the things they're talkin
the rates. think about it. we haven't touched it since ronald reagan really. in 1986. bill clinton did raise the rate one point but we haven't done anything to touch our rate and reform our code. every other country, all of them have. taxes gone from 16% to 15%. you do business there. this flow of capital will follow countries that have more competitive environment and taxes are one of them. yes, we have to reform the tax code. when you do that, i will get more revenue. it is guaranteed. again, sort of as i was talking about earlier. this is opportunities here. this is opportunity for us as a country. if you look at the congressional budget analysis and joint tax committee analysis, what tax reform could mean in terms of macroeconomic impact and growth, all will lead to more growth, whether corporate tax reform or individual tax reform. >> right but if the president insists as he did last friday, this was fought over in the campaign and, fought over tax rates, rising tax rates, he didn't ice the words rates himself but jay carney, the white house press secretary said the president will veto
% interest rates gas lines, stagflation in 1888 different president. ronald reagan inherited a struggling economy. and reagan implemented policies 180 degrees opposite those of obama. incentive jacking up taxes, he slashed taxes. instead of exploding spending on the debt, he restrain the growth of spending and instead of unleashing the the regulators, by the way, what i think the regulators i can't help think of mr. burns saying release the hounds. [laughter] instead of releasing the hounds of regulators and small businesses a notch when there is, reagan limited regulation and the result was one of the most extraordinary burst of economic proactivity our nation has ever seen. the fourth-year regulation precisely corresponds to write here, the fourth year of obama's president be. anyone know what gdp growth was in 1984? 7.2%. our ideas work, their ideas don't. if you want growth, if you want jobs, if you want 23 million people struggling to find to get jobs, the answer is that the unique growth. they simplify the tax burden, reduce regulations and punching small businesses a notch for view
's a kind of big confusion here because the classic republican economic vision and the ronald reagan vision and even the dynamic republican revolution vision that you were a part of was really centering on small business and the idea that small business is the idea that creates 75% of the country and it's this dynamic force. people fail, people succeed. things happen and small business is the engine of creation. and there was big business and small business. >> and of course the secret, something all republicans opp e oppose, someone uses regulation as a weapon against other businesses and gets things pass that had are helpful to their specific corporation but harmful to competitors whereas small businesses experience the ownerousness of regulation without a lot of the benefits. this is always a problem that the republican party became affiliated or associated. i think in some large senses wrongly with big business sense. helpful to the obama administration. signed on to obama care. what happened with two of the biggest corporations in the country. too broad of a stroke. we're against regu
examples of presidents who solved big problems by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic-led house after a far more resounding second-term victory than president obama's, as did bill clinton, with a republican-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate after a more resounding second-term victory than president obama. both examples -- both of them -- illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected, by thumbing his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans aren't willing to do things his way, he won't do anything at all. now, if the president's serious, he'll follow the leads of president reagan and clinton. if he's really serious, he'll put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic solution that can pass a republican-controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. and if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he'll have the support of his own party and a willing partner
been pro-immigration. ronald reagan was solidly for immigration reform, and if you go to youtube and google reagan-mondale debate, reagan making the case not for legalization, but for amnesty. using that word. now, republicans are pro-immigration, but they have been afraid for the past six years of anti-immigration lobby with an incredible political machine, and anybody who says anything constructive on immigration will be labeled pro-amnesty, and certainly, some talk show hosts, and now, i think this election cycle dramatically changed that. i can, at least, number half a dozen talk shows that said, you know what? my position evolved, and now i'm for immigration reform, but that is good because it will give cover to a lot of republicans who have avoided the issue or want to deal with the issue to actually do it so we have to reclaim the issue, and we can do it because immigration and being for immigration reform is actually the conservative position. restrictionists at the end is part of the nationalist, protectionist paradigm, and if we are the party of the family, if we ar
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)